Short vision carries heavy price

Aug.25 2006

Short vision carries heavy price


FOR all technical purposes, the American support for the Israeli military offensive against Hizbollah is based on the argument that the assault is part of the US-led "war against terror." However, the argument is very thin. Hizbollah has given no indication that it poses a terror threat to the US or any other country and it argues that its actions against Israel are part of legitimate resistance.
Indeed, Hizbollah is blamed for many attacks against the US during the 1980s, including the 1983 Beirut barracks bombing that killed 241 American soldiers. Those attacks came when the US military was present in Lebanon, and Hizbollah did not venture out of the country to stage any assaults on the US military.
Since the 90s, there is no record of any Hizbollah attack against the US; nor has it issued any specific threats either. Indeed, its leaders have always been fiercely critical of the US, but those expressions could be seen in parallel to hostility towards American policies by any group anywhere in the world.
According to the US State Department, Hizbollah signed an agreement with the Palestinian Hamas group in 2004 calling for joint attacks against Israel. Again, such actions are defined as legitimate resistance by the groups whereas the US and Israel call them "terrorism," and this difference is linked to the unresolved question of what constitutes resistance and how to define terrorism.
These realities are overlooked by the Bush administration when it categorically states that Hizbollah is posing an international terror threat and bases itself on "expert findings" that the group has networks in North America, South America, Europe, Africa, Asia and the Middle East.
That argument could turn to be yet another ingredient for fuelling more threats against the US rather than scaling them down.
The transparent American backing for Israel's offensive aimed at destroying Hizbollah would only produce more danger of militant retaliation against the US.
The US and Israel are deemed to be fighting a joint war against Hizbollah. While the Israeli military is waging the battle on the ground, sea and air, the US is providing military supplies to Israel and preventing calls for a cease-fire in the Israeli-Hizbollah conflict. Furthermore, it is also offering a protective umbrella for Israel at the UN and other international forums.
As such, the summary conclusion in this part of the world is that the ongoing assault on Lebanon is collective action by Israel and the US, particularly given the long record of American support for the Jewish state. This is a perfect recipe for increased threats to US interests anywhere in the world but they need not be linked to Hizbollah.
US intelligence agencies say that Hizbollah has sleeping cells around the world which could galvanise into action at any given point in time. At best, this could be seen as a pre-emptive argument.
Since the Sept.11, 2001 attacks in New York and Washington, US intelligence agencies have been combing the world for groups and individuals suspected of harbouring anti-American hostility. Thousands have been rounded up and detained either in their host countries or in secret American detention centres in "friendly" countries. Many of them were never involved in anti-US activity, and their detention was based only on the basis they could have, at some point in time, posed "security" threats.
If the US intelligence agencies continue insist that Hizbollah-linked groups could carry out anti-US attacks anywhere in the world, it could mean several things: The agencies' spying abilities have gone too weak to have spotted and busted the cells, or they are raising the argument only to support the administration's contention that Hizbollah poses an international terror threat. There is a third possibility: US intelligence expects anti-US attacks to be staged by forces sympathetic to — and not necessarily directly linked with — Hizbollah, and "intelligence experts" are insuring themselves against that possibility.
On the ground in Lebanon and in the broader Middle East, the Israeli offensive is gathering political support for Hizbollah among middle-of-the-road Arabs and Muslims.
They see the US as effectively not only cheering the Israeli assault but also offering direct and indirect support to the offensive that have caused large numbers of casualties and displaced hundreds of thousands of Lebanese.
The Israeli action has also helped bring Sunni groups closer to the Shiite Hizbollah. It was unheard and unseen until now to have Sunni-led demonstrators in many countries carrying posters of Hizbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah and chanting slogans in support of the Shiite group.
There is not much love lost between Osama Bin Laden's Sunni Al Qaeda and Hizbollah, but Al Qaeda might seek to take advantage of the situation by staging attacks described as revenge for the offensive against Hizbollah in Lebanon and gain support among Arabs and Muslims around the world.
"Even Al Qaeda itself may be ready with an attack, and they may choose to use it now," according to Michael Scheuer, a former Central Intelligence Agency official who ran the agency's Bin Laden unit. Scheuer said this would be extraordinary opportunity for Al Qaeda to emerge as "the champion of the Palestinian people."
Reuters quoted another former US official, who remains up to date on counterterrorism strategy, as saying that "there will be revenge attacks."
"The concern now is that there's rising animosity that will be exploited, not just by Hizbollah," said the unidentified official. "Then there are people being driven over the edge by what's happening, who aren't necessarily members of any group, but who might strike."
It is short-sighted vision that "destruction" of groups like Hizbollah and Hamas would lead to ending the conflict in the Middle East. Unfortunately, that is the vision adopted by the heavily Israel-influenced US, and the price for the short-term vision would be heavy in the medium and long term, if only because of the reality that the "permanent solution" that Israel and the US have in mind could only be imposed on the region without Arab acceptance.